as long as there is a functioning economy, the line will inevitably go up.
That gets to be a bigger if every month forward
Only using the plastic junk to make more plastic trinkets is not successfully recycling, no matter how they market it as such. It needs to be used for practical value products at least in part or it's just another way of reformatting the trash
Not like he actually cares.
Ok but you do see how 65 is getting up there in age, right? Like I'm sure there's a few people here above that, and OP should've accounted for that in their statement. But the vast majority of us have in fact grown up in the last 65 years where freedom of speech in the usa has been well and truly absolute.
The USA was a political experiment started solely by white, landowning, 20-something slavers for the express intent of genociding as many Native Americans as possible.
People over a hundred years dead do not define the present of a country. Hell, look at Germany. Sure they have a small nazi party but the nazis were only 80 years ago and aren't defining their present reality..
The political experiment line is just strange, seriously.
also get that people living in single family neighborhoods don't want their neighborhoods turned into high density housing
I get why they want it. But you can't just let a few stand in the way of progress. Single family no business housing shouldn't have a place in urban environments.
And I'm torn between the genuine need for housing in California and my belief that letting a majority of voters who aren't impacted by a policy impose it on a minority of voters who are is a shitty way to run a government.)
That kind of logic is how you get less taxes on the rich.
Well, one of the main reasons I'm more fixated on that is because the only point I'm really disagreeing with you on is what's considered police. That and that safety offices should have power to arrest. But basically, every single thing you've said are things I fully think are necessary changes.
Since I consider investigative services as mostly police and any arrests or response teams as 100% police no matter their names, and you seem to disagree with that viewpoint
You didn't answer the question I notice. Traffic enforcement, often called traffic cops, are absolutely cops.
You've talked here about how police are the ones investigating workplace safety issues.
Well, it sounded like I was, but they aren't. It's my wish for a serious enforcement agency to review safety instead of a joke of an organization.
You could do things like funding/empowering the fire department to investigate all arson cases, not just provide some investigative services to the police.
Investigating arson is the job of the fire department. The fire warden is a fire cop.
The entire issue with policing is that it's one homogenous, corrupt organisation. Breaking it down, separating out its powers into other services or bodies, limits the possibility of corruption. Perhaps you've heard the term "we investigated ourselves and found that we did nothing wrong"? If whatever direct crime response organisation you had, wasn't in charge of investigation, that would be much harder
Yes. Do you think police are only called police if they perform enforcement and investigation as one entity?
If they can pull you over, they're a cop. If they can arrest you, they're a cop. Taking a square and calling it a circle so you can sit there and say acab while advocating for cops still existing is what's questionable to me.
Before I explain myself, which I will, I'd first like to ask how you define police vs not police? Because honestly it just seems like you think law enforcement I like=not police
There is absolutely nothing stopping them from acquiring backup during those situations.
Sure. The people who arrest criminals will always be cops no matter how you dress them up.
Cops are not just the enforcers you don't like. I suppose the most accurate definition would be a cop is a person with authority to arrest.
A safety authority that can't arrest is toothless and worthless.
Would an independent investigative service or traffic enforcement still also be the police?
Yes. The branch of law in charge of enforcement are and always will be cops no matter what form they take.
There's no practical reason that investigative services would need to be provided by the police
Yes, there is. When investigating potentially dangerous suspects or areas, it's important to have people trained to deal with that. Like actually trained, unlike present forces.
It's a small portion that commit violent crimes, but violent crimes are not the only ones that create risk to others. You need to have investigatory forces for safety standards, both in the work place and on the roads, even in a socialist society.
Plus, a small number of violent criminals can disproportionately enforce fear upon a larger population if not dealt with properly by the law, so it is a necessary consideration.
As well, focussing on the small minority that are convicted of heinous violent crimes is a distraction from the actual issues in my opinion.
While it is often overstated by an incredible margin (see Chicago for a prime example) that doesn't make violent crimes not actual issues. It's important to see issues as proportionate as they are, but also realize that dealing with small issues is still important, especially as to keep them from blossoming into larger ones.
. I like to believe we can come together as a society and brainstorm a better system.
Our system is broken. Police as they are need to be abolished and burned to the ground as an institution, replaced with a force that isn't built on a foundation of violence and protecting the rich.
The quality of reddit took a massive hit after the strike and never recovered.
People will say this to pretend you shouldn't criticize any incentives that have decent effects. Cleaning it and putting in landfills is better than oceans. But making more trash to be thrown out isn't solving anything